New York Times endorses President Obama:  The New York Times endorses President Obama for reelection saying he has “shown firm commitment to help foster growth and has “impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans.” The paper slammed Mitt Romney saying he has gotten this far with “a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear.” In other words, the many, many Mitt Romneys.

New York Times:  President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that.


Mr. Romney has no plan for covering the uninsured beyond his callous assumption that they will use emergency rooms. He wants to use voucher programs to shift more Medicare costs to beneficiaries and block grants to shift more Medicaid costs to the states.

There shouldn’t be any doubt in the minds of the undecided voters of who would stand up and fight for them. If they are in the 47 percent of Americans Mitt Romney called deadbeats, or the 30 percent his running mate Paul Ryan called takers, then the GOP presidential candidate isn’t your man.

The endorsement comes as the Obama campaign released a brutal ad slamming Mitt Romney. The ad will air in key swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Virginia. The commercial, titled “Remember,” details President Barack Obama’s main talking points against Mitt Romney: A voucher-like approach to Medicare, tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, slashing the education budget, and rolling back regulations on bank

Watch Obama brutal campaign ad “Remember:”

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Leave a replyComments (26)
  1. dduck October 27, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    No shit, what a surprise.

  2. sheknows October 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    It would be great if the uninsured actually could just stroll into any emergency room whenever they wanted medical care, but that’s not how it works. This shows just how very little Romney understands about how insurance and the healthcare industry operates ( beyond being big, big money making industries in the US…THAT much he knows.) The man is just plain stupid. I gather he has never been to an emergency room or inquired what it is they actually DO there. or just what their actual purpose is. And he wants Americans to trust him with his version of healthcare, and Medicare? Believe me, anything the Republican party wants to do has to do with money. Money, money, money…how can we make more money for ourselves. I am impressed with NYT calling it like they see it.

  3. dduck October 27, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    SK, do the words, uttered by the one, resonate in the progressive sphere: Universal Health Care, 60 votes.

  4. PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor October 27, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Just a little trivia for you, the last time the NYT endorsed a Republican for President, Obama was not alive.

    Offered merely as an interesting little factoid, nothing else.

  5. The_Ohioan October 27, 2012 at 9:54 pm


    Have they ever given such a resounding set-down before?

  6. PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor October 27, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Decide for yourself

  7. The_Ohioan October 27, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Wow. They don’t mince words, do they! Poor Bush 2 gets a real reaming out in 2004, but McCain didn’t fare well either. Not that it makes much difference; they have less than a 50% success rate for the past 13 elections.

  8. PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor October 27, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Remember, for the NYT editorial board the late great George McGovern was a right winger.

  9. SteveK October 27, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    It’s worth noting that our Republican friends are totally ignoring WHY the NYT is endorsing President Obama… Which is, in part, Mitt Romney’s ‘Callous Assumption’ Uninsured Will Use Emergency Rooms’. It seems that this is too much truth for them to argue against so they want us to talk the histrionics of what the NYT has done in the past instead… This being the typical Republican response.

    Hey Guys… It’s not the past we’re talking about, it’s the present and smoke and mirror along with the failure of the Republicans to comment on the “WHY” of this endorsement speaks volumes.

    The American people are listening and it’s going to be a rout… Both popular and electoral votes are going to return OUR President to office for four more years.

    FWIW: Y’all are going to lose the lower house, too.

  10. ShannonLeee October 28, 2012 at 3:49 am

    Almost as shocking as the WSJ endorsing romney.

  11. dduck October 28, 2012 at 9:27 am

    PE, the NYT actually endorsed a Rep state senator yesterday!!!!

  12. dduck October 28, 2012 at 9:31 am

    Speaking of the NYT editorial staff, I hope they haven’t excommunicated Maureen Dowd. Haven’t seen a her column lately. I know, they don’t control the pundit lineup.

  13. rudi October 28, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Just a little trivia for you, the last time the NYT endorsed a Republican for President, Obama was not alive.

    And the Post and WSJ always endorse a Republican. It fits into the business model…

  14. zusa1 October 28, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    The uninsured are not made up of a homogeneous set of people that we tend to lump into the category of “powerless”. When the healthcare debate was going on, I read a blog entry where a woman claimed that after paying her mortgage payment and two car payments, she couldn’t manage to afford health insurance for her children. Huh? I got to know a person who is self employed who also could afford a high deductible plan and chooses not to. I watched a segment on current TV about a woman in her mid 20’s (who was working) and was injured and did not have insurance (she was treated through medicaid). They showed her getting into a nice new looking car. I looked up how much a high deductible plan was in her state…at that time it was $260/mo. My point is that the group of uninsured is not just the “powerless”(a term I find insulting to describe able bodied people…it has a ring of condescension to it) it also includes the irresponsible…the able to pay but choose not to. Should we strive to get insurance costs down and root out corruption within the system? Of course. Government sponsored healthcare is not the panacea the left makes it out to be. I lived in the UK and guess what perk people wanted from their employer? Private health insurance. And why? Our secretary for said her father needed knee surgery and was on a 3 year waiting list.

    Regarding the 47% of us that don’t pay taxes. I believe there should be an alternative minimum tax for everyone of say $100. I think that it would help us feel that we were all in it together with skin in the game. We also tend to be a little more thoughtful about how money is being spent if we feel we are spending our own and not someone else’s. I also think there needs to be some changes at the high end like closing the hedge fund manager tax loop hole for starters, and if your primary source of income is passive, there should be a minimum percentage taxed as ordinary income.

  15. sheknows October 28, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Your points are well taken Z. Socialized medicine does have it’s share of flaws to be sure, but a happy medium should be struck between the unbridaled reign the healthcare industry is given to raise costs and the unfortunates waiting in line for medical help. The Affordable Healthcare Act gives all people a chance to have insurance coverage. Those irresponsibles who choose not to have it will pay a penalty ( or tax as the Republicans want to call it) since their medical costs affect all of us unfairly. But if Romneys’ alternative to that penalty under HIS plan is for the uninsured to use emergency rooms, than it clearly shows how stupid he is. Windows don’t open on airplanes and people don’t use an emergency room for a doctors’ visit…. all for good reasons.

  16. zusa1 October 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    sheknows, I just think it is a mistake to come to the conclusion that the best and only way to resolve this problem is for government to take charge. They don’t really have a very good track record. In general, when there are multiple companies competing for business in any industry, they have a built in tendency to “tow the line” because they know there is someone right behind them that would be more than happy to take over their customer base if they screw up. The one thing government is supposed to be doing is rout out corruption and collusion and what do they do in practice? Join in or turn a blind eye. Do we really want them in charge? I heard Bill Maher say regarding healthcare, that given a choice between trusting a corporation and trusting government, he would choose government (I’m paraphrasing from memory). But its not a choice between one corporation and one government, and you can’t trust either with too much power. It’s a choice between multiple corporations competing with the government playing referee or just one government with all the power.

  17. dduck October 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    SK, “I heard Bill Maher” Did you catch the orangutan joke?

  18. sheknows October 28, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Good point Z, I agree. In theory Corporations should compete for our business and as you said ” it’s not a choice between one corporation and one government and you can’t trust either with too much power”.Amen to that! My only concern is that this particuliar corporation, the healthcare Industry already has waaaay too much power…as evidenced by their powerful lobbyists.The government shouldn’t be stepping in to take over until they have cleaned up their own mess (getting rid of medicare fraud for starters).Ralph Nader said ” Corporations run the economy” and he is correct. My fear is that they have begun to run the country, along with the politicians who are in their pocket.

  19. zusa1 October 28, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    If I were a conspiracy theorist, it would almost seem that our politicians keep us fired up against each other to keep our eyes off of them.

  20. dduck October 28, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Z, I sort of agree.

  21. The_Ohioan October 28, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    And they’re doing a damn good job. No discussion of missing tax returns for weeks. No interviews with reporters to explain who loses tax deductions and by much to pay for the increase in defense spending. Just Benghazi and evangelical nuts and Ann Coulter. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I can recognize patterns of dissimulation when I see them.

  22. dduck October 28, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    O, I don’t think that is what Z was saying, she blames BOTH parties for deluding us.

  23. The_Ohioan October 28, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    OK. See, I got my snark in and can now walk it back. I’m learning.

  24. sheknows October 28, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Z…too funny!! But O has a point too. You do seem to hear alot about all the things in the news that can cause finger pointing and dissention and very lttle about how parties voted on issues or what POSITIVE initiatives are being undertaken by individuals ( like Clinton for energy….now I am not being partisan here, I just happen to think we need to hear more about things of that nature…if Republicans past or present were doing more of that I think the nation should hear it) I think the media just likes to stir up a very heated pot. Ratings you know. Big corporations just earning their money..LOL.

  25. sheknows October 28, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    BTW…I guess I goofed on that. The Clinton initiative IS a bi-partisan effort. Guess I forgot because we never hear about it in the news.

  26. sheknows October 28, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    You know, after this election I pray there are some major changes in the bi-partisan effort…no matter WHO wins. All parties are being effected, Independants, libertarians, Dems, and Reps. We are a nation, ans as such have a stong history of cooperation or we wouldn’t have gotten this far. This country isn’t about gaining power, and certainly not at the expense of the nations welfare! Let the religious “nuts” retire to the background and let people find God’s place in their own life..not the life you dictate. Stop being petty and spiteful and vindictive and mean. We hacked our way our of the widerness together. You never hear anyone ask when they were helping after Katrina if they were Dem or Rep, and no one who responded in 911 cared if they were helping a prty member or not. We have an economic 911 in this country people and we ALL need to work together to overcome the trauma.